Oh my, this should get Obama's panties in a wad. I guess his latest release of another fake [link to obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com] birth certificate was an epic failure. Just wait until more people get word that the new one is as fake as the first one. Oh and wait until Dr. Corsi's new book [link to superstore.wnd.com] hits the New York Times bestseller list. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, commie obots!

Yes, The Globe is only a tabloid magazine You know, the same type that broke the John Edwards scandal and destroyed his seemingly-certain Presidential aspirations. Like the one that broke the Bill Clinton scandal. In its (as of this writing, current) May 16, 2011 issue, The Globe [link to www.globemagazine.com] has a banner headline that reads,

This story is actually extremely important. It takes what many of us have said publicly - and proven - by the tens of thousands and puts those facts on every magazine rack in America, in front of millions of Americans at checkout counters every day. The same magazine racks that average people pass by the millions each day. The same ones that senators and congressman pass each day. The same ones that White House personnel see every day. The same one Trump will see because the headline also has his face on it - it seems Trump is now officially and publicly stuck with dealing with the issue of the forgery even if he wanted to avoid it, which seems unlikely, and he is certain to read the story .

In it, the story quotes a very important source: "It's absolutely a fake!" declares Mara Zebest, author of several books on how to use computers and alter documents." In fact, Zebeth has co-authored no less than 17 books on the subject of advanced computer graphics, at least one of which sit on the shelves of virtually every advanced photoshop user in every English-speaking country. She writes for the beginner and intermediate user, but professionals instantly and instinctively recognize from her writing and examples the extensive depth of her skill. When she writes for the intermediate user, she isn't stretching up, but dumbing down her own instincts and abilities to meet the user's level. Every higher-level professional knows this about Zebeth. This is not just "a professional" earning a salary, somewhere - Zebeth is professionally respected by everyone in the business, even those who learned the program from the very beginning, long before she began writing, yours truly included. Her credibility is beyond any question.

In The Globe, Zebest goes on at length explaining, "There's all this evidence showing the document was build from different sources."

On several sites an online treatise by Zebeth is quoted as saying, "This is so maddening to listen to the media on this recent revelation… it’s such an obvious fake.... Lastly, look at the attached 1961 sample image found on the Internet of a legitimate 1961 Hawaii Birth Certificate (which someone posted to show what a real certificate would look like from that year in Hawaii)… look at the marks on this Internet version and you can see this was the template for Obama’s BC handiwork. The handwriting is exactly the same between posted Internet image and Obama’s fake version — the placement of boxes and marks are in the exact same position, dates are where the modified clipping masks occur to adjust dates to fit for Obama, but the handwriting of dates match (except for the clipping mask changes). Even the Cert. number is only off by the last two digits (which…you guessed it… happens to be a clipping mask layer)."

This particular graphics expert and special effects supervisor/consultant writing this article concurs. As do thousands of others. In seeming solidarity with this writer/graphics professional, she says something in The Globe about the forgery that I have said from the outset on this site, others have also, and still believe: "There is an element of amateurishness about it". Indeed.

If you want to get some small sense of Zebeth's degree of technical complexity, while the following is not earth-shattering as an example, and is designed for the beginner/moderate user, it certainly tops out at many. many times above what would be required to make the obvious fake put out by the White House, which she, me and so many others document categorically in our professional opinions as an unquestionable forgery.

As this writer has also said, The Globe cites the ghosts of the Nixon and Clinton scandals, the history of which is now eerily echoing a firm resonance through this issue of Obama's citizenship. As always, as liberals used to say about Watergate, it isn't the crime, it's the cover-up. Yes. Prediction: Obama does not last through this scandal for longer than another 6 months at best, even with a complicit media. The cat is out of the bag: Obama's long form birth certificate for which he has claimed authenticity is a fake and enough media has picked up on it bolstered by expert testimony to make this the end-game. Even if Obama were somehow innocent in the forgery, which seems impossible given the way he has fought disclosure of his own records, no one would - or should - believe him. No teleprompter or collusive health record officials can save him, now, from the political and possible legal consequences of his own irresponsible and possibly illegal actions. He's finished. Stay on the issue and keep it coursing through the veins of this country's citizenship. The final conclusion and end to this nightmare is finally at hand.

Video: First Interview With Obama's Political Prisoner Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin After His Early Release From Fort Leavenworth Prison

Video: Here's the first interview with Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Terry Lakin after his early release from Fort Leavenworth prison. LTC Lakin's brother Dr. Greg Lakin joined him during the interview. The interview aired on America's Web Radio on 5/13/2011. you tube video of the interview

The person who has said it is fake is amongst the top experts in the field, its a slam dunk, only lack of a free press can stop the complete truth of the matter becoming known now , and so something being done to remedy this historic act of fraud.

In preparing to transition at team of graphic artists and web designers from Photoshop 5.5 to Photoshop 6, I have reviewed several books on the revised application. Inside Adobe Photoshop 6 is the best I have found that will serve as both a comprehensive tutorial and a reference manual.

This book is loaded with samples and how-tos that will help anyone planning to learn...Read the full review ›Published on December 28, 2000 by AbbyDeBoston

15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:5.0 out of 5 stars GREAT Reference, February 9, 2001By Barbara Rhoades "Jackie of all Trades" (O'Fallon, MO USA) - See all my reviews(VINE VOICE) (TOP 500 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME) This review is from: Inside Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) 6 (Paperback)I always knew Photoshop was a Power Program and Inside Adobe Photoshop 6 with CD proves this to be true. With over a thousand pages, the authors didn't miss a thing this program can do.

For those of us that are just learning Photoshop, the first chapter provides a good foundation for what can be found in Photoshop. Chapter Three which is approximately 60 pages long goes through Color Management. There are two chapters on images and one on Tools and automation. And all of this can be found in Part I.

Part II contains information on layers and special effects using type. Part III takes the reader through Color Correction, working with pictures and repairing them, using the tools and making surrealistic images.

Part IV brings the reader to the Web itself. Finally, in Part V, there is information on the CD that comes with the book, resources and what wasn't covered in the book. Even though the book is very long, there are graphical examples throughout plus Tips, Notes, and Warnings.

This book is not made for overnight reading but is definitely one that anyone using Photoshop should have on hand. It may not be one that you read from cover to cover, but it will be certain to have the material to answer your questions.

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:5.0 out of 5 stars Disgruntled in Delray, February 1, 2001By Grand Inquisitor (Delray, Michigan USA) - See all my reviewsThis review is from: Inside Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) 6 (Paperback)I feel it is my duty to write this counter to the poor review this book has recieved. I found this book incredibly insightful. Photoshop 6 is the best multi-platform graphics program out there, so windows or mac matters very little. I also have a problem with anyone commenting on proofreading who makes 5 spelling errors in a 78 word document.

To a graphics professional, this author is percieved as one of the gurus in the field. This book truly lives up to that reputation. The teaching style used does not merely teach how to use a program, but to create your own works, not simply imitate the examples presented in the book. I feel very strongly that this is one of the best books on photoshop out.

Obama is a continuation of policy. The same advisors that advised former presidents are advising him. He continues the war on terror. He deals with the economy through the fed. He handled the BP spill in a 'no government intervention in business' way. He is doing exactly what presidents before him did. Natural born or not, he is a real American puppet, the same like you can get at the republican side.

Obama is a continuation of policy. The same advisors that advised former presidents are advising him. He continues the war on terror. He deals with the economy through the fed. He handled the BP spill in a 'no government intervention in business' way. He is doing exactly what presidents before him did. Natural born or not, he is a real American puppet, the same like you can get at the republican side.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1368734

Exactly. That's why everybody is so sick of the bullshit. SHARPTON 2012!!!!

"Take a chance while you still got a choice" Bon ScottOnce I was nothing, then I became everything

On April 27, 2011, Jay Carney, White House (WH) press secretary, held a “Press Gaggle” to introduce the media to President Obama’s original, certified, long-form birth certificate. Carney gave “paperwork” to reporters: a packet containing copies of Obama’s short-form Certification of Live Birth (COLB), the so-called long-form birth certificate, and four pages of correspondence between the Hawaiian Dept. of Health (HDOH), and Obama and his attorneys.

Since then, many have analyzed the documents, but I decided to analyze the words spoken at the birth certificate rollout. So I read the gaggle transcript more closely, and noticed some curiosities. Below are excerpts, not the entire transcript from the WH website. Names of reporters were inexplicably excluded from the transcript. Carney began the discussion:

Let me just get started. Thank you for coming this morning. I have with me today Dan Pfeiffer, the President’s Director of Communications, as well as Bob Bauer, the President’s White House Counsel, who will have a few things to say about the documents we handed to you today. And then we’ll take your questions. I remind you this is off camera and only pen and pad, not for audio.

Off camera? Only pen and pad? Why? This is supposed to be the “most transparent” administration ever.

No photos, so nobody can zoom in later to more closely examine the document they planned to quickly flash at reporters, from the podium? No audio, so any unfortunate or illogical statement made by Obama’s lawyer or spokesperson could later be explained away as something a reporter “misheard”? Pfeiffer spoke next:

What you have in front of you now is a packet of papers that includes the President’s long-form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, the original birth certificate that the President requested and we posted online in 2008, and then the correspondence between the President’s counsel and the Hawaii State Department of Health that led to the release of those documents.

They were COPIES, not originals of anything. Copied on a machine, from a stack of documents, as demonstrated by butterdezillion. A stack of papers that could not have contained either the allegedly certified long-form or short-form birth certificate, because text bled through onto each page from the page beneath, which can’t happen when copying documents printed on security paper.

PFEIFFER: In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.

This cannot be true if the COLB is legitimate; the COLB is stamped 2007, not 2008.

PFEIFFER: We received that document; we posted it on the website. That document was then inspected by independent fact checkers, who came to the campaign headquarters and inspected the document — independent fact checkers did, and declared that it was proof positive that the President was born in Hawaii.

And yet, magically, these “independent fact checkers” came there in March 2008, before the COLB was ever posted online, so they were clairvoyant time travelers as well as self-proclaimed “fact checkers”. But that settled it! Self-proclaimed, unnamed fact checkers, with no forensic experience whatsoever, declared it was “proof postive” that Obama was born in Hawaii. (These “independent” fact checkers worked for FactCheck, a blog funded by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, with which Obama was once associated.)

However, even if legitimate, which remains in question, that same COLB would be proof positive that Obama is not a natural born citizen and so is ineligible for the presidency, by virtue of having a foreign father.

PFEIFFER: To be clear, the document we presented on the President’s website in 2008 is his birth certificate. It is the piece of paper that every Hawaiian receives when they contact the state to request a birth certificate. It is the birth certificate they take to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver’s license and that they take to the federal government to get their passport. It is the legally recognized document.

At the time it was posted, in June 2008, even the state of Hawaii did not consider it to be his “birth certificate”. To be clear, it’s a digital image on the Internet. It’s not a 3-dimensional “document”. It’s not a piece of paper. It’s a digital image.

Only now does Hawaii consider it “the birth certificate,” because for some reason the state of Hawaii redefined their definitions, after this COLB was put online and was questioned by a discerning public. That COLB is not sufficient proof of natural born citizenship, because it does not state the citizenship of the parents. That “birth certificate” might be sufficient proof to obtain a driver’s license or a passport, but only when presented as a state-certified PAPER DOCUMENT, not a digital image on a blog, or in a campaign ad, or even as a photocopy handed out to the media.

PFEIFFER: That essentially — for those of you who followed the campaign closely know that solved the issue. We didn’t spend any time talking about this after that. There may have been some very fringe discussion out there, but as a campaign issue it was settled and it was –

Read: for those who were in the tank, not paying attention, complicit, brain dead, ignorant, or afraid, that “solved the issue.” Even if the campaign didn’t spend time talking about it, which I seriously doubt, Mr. Robert Gibbs said plenty; it’s on You Tube. Note: Those who were talking were “very fringe”. Alinsky 101.

REPORTER: When you posted this did you post the other side of it where the signature is?

An intelligent question! The response. Wait for it . . .

PFEIFFER: Yes.

Astoundingly audacious!

REPORTER: Because it is not here and that’s been an issue.

From this we know that the copy of the COLB given to the media was one-sided, as it’s ALWAYS BEEN. Doesn’t the WH have a copy machine that can copy both sides of a document at once? Luddites! So the media didn’t get a copy of the reverse side of the COLB and at least one unnamed reporter was smart enough to ask why not.

Why wouldn’t they have copied both sides of the COLB? Maybe because Pfeiffer got his copy from SNOPES. Click that link and roll to the bottom of the page; read what’s printed there. Snopes! This comes from the WH blog, within a story written by Pfeiffer on April 27, 2011. Why wouldn’t the WH Director of Communications have an in-house, two-sided copy of the document? Now even our government relies upon BLOGS for “facts”? But what about what Pfeiffer said–that they posted both sides of the COLB on the Internet, back in 2008? Pfeiffer doubles down:

We posted both sides and when it was looked at it was looked at by — the fact checkers came to headquarters and actually examined the document we had. …

So he didn’t misspeak. This is astoundingly audacious. The campaign NEVER posted the reverse side of that COLB ANYWHERE, nor did FactCheck blog, Fight the Smears, the LA Times, or Daily Kos blog.

FactCheck blog, which cannot by law be among Pfeiffer’s “we”, posted a tightly-cropped image of a registrar’s certification and date stamp (see above) that they implied came from the reverse side of the COLB that they examined in Chicago; but they NEVER posted the entire reverse side of the “document.” They posted these carefully cropped, out-of-context images in August 2008, two months AFTER the campaign supposedly “posted” BOTH SIDES of the COLB. It’s important to remember that FactCheck blog is (Pfeiffer said so) INDEPENDENT of the Obama campaign and his administration. So when and where did the campaign post the reverse side of that COLB? Never. Nowhere.

PFEIFFER: Bob [Bauer, the lawyer] will explain why — the extraordinary steps we had to take to receive that and the legal restraints that are in place there. But it became an issue again. And it went to — essentially the discussion transcended from the nether regions of the Internet into mainstream political debate in this country.

Allow me to welcome our readers to the “nether regions.” According to this administration, the issue had become “a distraction.” A distraction for Obama and his minions, who were closely following his sinking poll numbers. However, putting the issue to rest was apparently not important enough for them to take these steps much earlier, such as before consigning LTC Terry Lakin to Leavenworth PRISON. Riddle me this: If this long-form birth certificate–the version put out for public consumption–is indeed real, legitimate, authentic, and certified, then why, instead of showing it long ago, did Obama spend millions on lawyers and send a patriot to prison, rather than to bring it forward before now? There is no logical answer.

CARNEY: I just want to — sorry, I meant to mention at the top, as some of you may have seen, the President will be coming to the briefing room at 9:45 a.m., making a brief statement about this – not taking questions, but just wanted to let you know….

Why wouldn’t the POTUS take questions? True to form, he lectured, hectored, and ridiculed those who merely expect him to prove that what he says is true.

BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request.

The HDOH gave out certified copies of long-forms as recently as March, 2011; some indications are that this “waiver” may have been considered as early as August 2010, per the creation date on the pdf, which would put it right around the time that Obama made his infamous comment about how he can’t walk around with his birth certificate plastered on his forehead. Pay attention to the curious focus in those letters on the many requests made to the HDOH for Obama’s records. Odd timing, considering that the issue was put to rest in May, 2010, by passage of the ”vexatious requestor” bill, yet another example of Hawaii bending the rules to help Obama.

REPORTER: Bob, can you explain why President Obama let this drag on for four years? Was it Donald Trump that prompted you to issue this?

BAUER: I’ll let Dan –

PFEIFFER: Sure.

REPORTER: I know you expected that question, right? (Laughter.)

PFEIFFER: He even said you would be the one who would ask it. (Laughter.)

So who was that reporter? Lester Kinsolving of World Net Daily or Jake Tapper of ABC? Those are my guesses.

PFEIFFER: I don’t think this dragged on for four years because this was a resolved — for those of you who remember the campaign, this issue was resolved in 2008. And it has not been an issue, none of you have asked about it, called about it, reported on it until the last few weeks.

No, it wasn’t resolved, and LTC Lakin was sent to PRISON as proof. I believe Mr. Kinsolving asked many times. It was certainly an issue in the many lawsuits that challenged Obama’s eligibility, since that COLB was produced.

REPORTER: And this is going to sound — I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to — remain unconvinced. They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there.

Of course people will say that because it’s TRUE. It’s logical, and it’s true, and not without precedent. It’s entirely possible that someone did “type anything in there,” as forensic document experts have alleged. (Scroll down to find a collection of links to various analyses of this long-form birth certificate.)

People will say this so long as the actual physical documents are not subjected to forensic examination or presented to a court of law. In Corley’s letter to the HDOH, she requested a waiver to “allow my client to make a certified copy of his original birth certificate publicly available.” And yet, no certified copy IS publicly available. The HDOH granted the waiver; the client did not hold up his end of the bargain, nor does he intend to, as you will see next.

REPORTER: Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any – (laughter.)

I had to enlarge that for emphasis. Will the ACTUAL CERTIFICATE be ON DISPLAY OR VIEWABLE? Thank you, anonymous reporter!

Why did they LAUGH? Because they ALREADY knew the answer? The answer: a big FAT NO.

REPORTER: Will the President be holding it?

PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.

Pfeiffer implies that what he holds is the actual certificate. But Obama will NOT hold it; will not avow it; will not recognize it; and Pfeiffer will take it with him before Obama arrives to speak. Why?

PFEIFFER: But it will — the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a — what they have on file. …

Obama’s spokesperson has just given the HDOH permission to speak on this issue. He’s given permission to ask them to “attest that that is what they have on file.” But even if someone asks, Pfeiffer refers to that OBJECT in his hands, which reporters cannot examine and which will NOT be “on display or viewable.” So the HDOH will not attest to the authenticity of the online pdf or those document copies handed out to the media (as with the COLB).

BAUER: And you’ll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to –

Ms. Fuddy’s letter attests that she oversaw the copying of whatever is on file in that book in Hawaii and that she saw them create and certify two copies of something. But her letter does NOT attest to the authenticity of whatever was handed out to the press or whatever was put into that pdf on the WH website.

REPORTER: But do you understand that this could quiet the conspiracy theorists?

This reporter advises Pfeiffer that putting the ACTUAL documents on display would end all controversy. Pay careful attention to his non-response.

PFEIFFER: There will always be some selection of people who will believe something, and that’s not the issue. The issue is that this is not a discussion that is just happening among conspiracy theorists. It’s happening here in this room; it’s happening on all of the networks. And it’s something that, as I said, every major political figure of both parties who’s actually out trying to talk about real issues is asked about this by the media. And so the President decided to release this. And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether there’s still — there will be some who still have a different — have a conspiracy about this.

REPORTER: You’ve got two certified copies, according to this study. You have these physical –

PFEIFFER: Yes. I showed you one. Just one.

See what happened there? Pfeiffer would not answer WHY they won’t put the actual documents on display for examination, even after the reporter pointedly spoke about “physical” items–physical certified copies, that they will not put on display to tamp down “conspiracy theories.” Why not?

Why did Pfeiffer flash “just one” of the alleged certified documents at reporters? How well did he show it to them? Not well, as you can tell by their remarks.

Could there be two copies because one is a copy of the actual, original birth certificate and the other is a copy of a second, amended birth certificate, neither of which exactly matches the information displayed on the version released to the public?

Perhaps, if there was an adoption, there’s a first version (ordinarily sealed, now waived for disclosure to the POTUS and his lawyers), with the biological parents named, and a second version, showing adoptive parents. Let’s speculate further: Pfeiffer has only the amended version, which is why he showed “just one” to reporters. Perhaps there’s some indication on the document that it’s been amended, as required by Hawaiian law, which is why reporters can’t examine it closely. The other version, Pfeiffer is never going to see, perhaps because it contains that “potentially embarrassing” information.

REPORTER: You showed us a photocopy of one.

PFEIFFER: No, I showed you –

Pfeiffer disagrees, implying that what he’s holding and what he showed reporters is the actual certified document. Read closely what follows:

REPORTER: Does that have a stamp?

This anonymous reporter cannot see the paper well enough to know whether or not there’s ”a stamp” on it. Therefore, he can’t READ what’s typed on it. He hasn’t a clue whether it matches the copy in his packet or not.

PFEIFFER: It has a seal on it. …

Not an answer to the question asked; the reporter asked if it has a STAMP on it. The reporter refers to the certification stamped by Onaka, the registrar who thereby swears to the authenticity of the data. This is what is required; this is Onaka’s testimony that the data is true and authentic. But Pfeiffer avoids saying anything about a stamp. Instead, he says there’s a seal, although one savvy reporter specifically asked about the STAMP. So the question remains:

Did Onaka stamp and authenticate whatever was hand-carried to the WH by Obama’s lawyer?

Could one copy be the original document filed but not accepted by the registrar in 1961, while the other is the amended document, finalized after affidavits were given in 2008?

Why were these hand-carried instead of mailed, like other copies? Is it because whatever is on those two certified, physical documents can’t fall into other hands, at any cost? Is this also why Pfeiffer waved the document around in front of reporters, but would not let them see it well enough to determine if it’s stamped or to read what’s on it? Is this also why he will not put it on display for examination? Is this also why won’t he let the POTUS hold it, lest Obama be seen “owning” it? Does Obama himself know what it says? If this is a truthful version of what’s on file in those vital records in Hawaii, then why is the book containing Obama’s record locked away in a special vault, accessible to just one person–Onaka?

CARNEY: I will let the President speak for himself, but what Dan was saying and I think is important is that the issue here is that the President feels that this was bad for the country; that it’s not healthy for our political debate, when we have so many important issues that Americans care about, that affect their lives, to be drawn into sideshows about fallacies that have been disproven with the full weight of a legal document for several years. …

The only fallacy here is that they claimed they produced a “legal document” years ago. It’s not even a document (it’s a digital image) and if it’s “legal”, why didn’t they present it to any of the judges in the ineligibility cases? Why did they fight discovery?

PFEIFFER: From a factual point of view, it’s absolutely a settled issue. But the fact that it was a settled issue did not keep it from becoming a major part of the political discussion in this town for the last several weeks here. So there’s absolutely no question that what the President released in 2008 was his birth certificate …

There are no FACTS presented to ANY court of law; therefore, there’s NO EVIDENCE to settle the issue. Until there is EVIDENCE presented under oath in a court or to another officer of the People, like an elections official, it will remain an issue.

REPORTER: Are these letters supposed to demonstrate the legal steps that were involved in releasing it to the White House counsel?

BAUER: The letters that you have, the personal request from the President, along with the accompanying letter from private counsel, is merely meant to document the legal path to getting the waiver of that policy so we could get the long-form certificate. …

So what’s missing? We already know that the receipts for payment, referred to as enclosures in Fuddy’s letter, are missing. (h/t Papoose)

BAUER: The short from is a computerized abstract, and that’s the legal birth certificate we requested in 2008 …

Not true, unless he’s admitting that the COLB posted online, which is DATED June 2007, is bogus. Or could it be that the one posted was from 2007 but they requested another version (not posted) in 2008, after Granny submitted affidavits, and after amendments were made to the “vital records”, around August 2008? Could both Pfeiffer and Bauer be confused about which COLB was posted and when?

BAUER: So in order for us to obtain the long form, we had to have a waiver.

Likely only true if there was another reason, like an ADOPTION, for sealing Obama’s original long-form birth certificate.

In sum, given every chance to put this “conspiracy theory” to rest once and for all, by allowing the two certified long-form birth certificates to be on display, to be examined by the media and the public, the WH declined, even though Obama’s personal lawyer used disclosure to the public as the excuse to obtain a waiver.

On cue, a member of the media, Sonny Bunch, while reviewing a book about 9/11 “Truthers”, invented a new Alinsky-style epithet for those who (logically) look askance at that “document” presented to the public at an opaque “press gaggle”. The epithet? FORGERS. Mr. Bunch began his review of a book that had nothing to do with “birthers” thusly,

The most disheartening aspect of the 2012 election cycle (so far) has been Donald Trump’s effort to press the “birther” argument, claiming that President Barack Obama may not have been born in Hawaii in 1961 but somewhere else—Kenya, perhaps. A survey in February recorded that 51% of GOP primary voters believed Mr. Obama to be a non-native son. In a victory for common sense, support for the position plummeted with the recent release of Mr. Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

He concluded his review of a book that has nothing to do with “birthers” thusly,

After Mr. Obama released his birth certificate in April, Forgers came forward to claim that it was a photo-shopped fake. Mr. Trump has yet to join their cause.

Do We the People have the audacity to hope that Mr. Trump will join this cause?

We the People deserve employees who are transparently willing to prove their eligibility for the job that they are hired to do.

BAUER: Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the longstanding prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made that we had the grounds upon which to make that request.

HE IS LYINGBECAUSE

The HDOH gave out certified copies of long-forms as recently as March, 2011

SO THERE YOU HAVE YOUR PROOF OF LIES FROM OBAMAS PERSONAL COUNSIL HIS LAWYER PROVEN BY HIS OWN MOUTH RIGHT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

THIS IS VERY INTERESTING FOR IT SHOWS AN EFFORT TO NOT IMPLICATE ONESELF BY HANDLING A FRAUDULANT DOCUMENT.

REPORTER: Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any – (laughter.)

I had to enlarge that for emphasis. Will the ACTUAL CERTIFICATE be ON DISPLAY OR VIEWABLE? Thank you, anonymous reporter!

Why did they LAUGH? Because they ALREADY knew the answer? The answer: a big FAT NO.

REPORTER: Will the President be holding it?

PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so.

Pfeiffer implies that what he holds is the actual certificate. But Obama will NOT hold it; will not avow it; will not recognize it; and Pfeiffer will take it with him before Obama arrives to speak. Why?